HR 1214: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Failed)

[Sestak]

I very much hope no member of the House votes to try and underhandedly amend the constitution with this damaging proposal in the lame duck session, especially those who have not been-reelected.

[Sestak]

hmmm.

Anyway, as Representative-elect, I'd just like to announce that I oppose this amendment.

[Sestak]

I have a better idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sestak]

Whoops, the "unless they want to" part was meant for the first clause. Not the justices part.

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone want to sponsor this amendment?

[Sestak]

What is that suppose to do?


All that does is erase the current text. Is there a planned subsequent replacement text?

Actually, it doesn't erase the entire text. Look again.

[Sestak]

Someone please motion to table this.

[Sestak]

With that amendment you still can't hold two cabinet positions at once, right?

[Sestak]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Mr. R to serve as Senator, SoS, and Southern AG, and Peebs to serve as Rep, SoFE, RG, and Southern Election Official.

Maybe instead just specify that being appointed to an elected position is still considered as holding an elected position? Then we can set limits of maximum

1 Elected Position
2 Federal Appointed Positions
2 (or 1) State Appointed Positions

Furthermore, we should state that Congress can suspend all dual office holding rules at any time in exigency with a motion backed by a simple majority in each house. In the event that inactivity becomes a serious enough problem, dual officeholding may be necessary to keep Atlasia running.

Also kill the grandfather clause. I won't vote for anything like this with one in it. Grandfather clauses are political pork and punt serious issues with a proposal down the road by offering temporary solutions.

[Sestak]

If we do that, then add Vice President, remove grandfather clause (no longer necessary), and add a Congressional power to suspend this like I mentioned on the last page. Then I'll be willing to support it.

[Sestak]

Question from a citizen. When I first read this list

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought it meant a person holding one of the offices could not hold any other office in addition but it sounds too good to be true. So I think it means a person can't hold two offices in the list at the same time. If that is it, what are the differences from the current situtation.

No appointing elected officials to interim terms in other elected positions.

For example, after Mr. Reactionary was elected to the Senate last month, he resigned his Delegate seat...only to be appointed back to it. This would no longer be permitted.

Also Congress now has powers to suspend ALL of these rules.

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, is that good enough?

From what I understand my original amendment was never adopted so more would be needed than that.
[/quote]

This includes your amendment with some modifications.

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sestak]

I don't see the need for this at all. What is the fear here?

I ask my question again to the supporters and the sponsors.

If my amendment is added, this will serve an important purpose: it will close the loophole regarding being appointed to an elected position, and, more importantly, will allow for the suspension of all dial officeholding rules if necessary by Congress.

[Sestak]

1. Are you actually the sponsor yet?
2. Is my amendment friendly?

[Sestak]

What does "clearly allowed" mean? Does the mere absence of any constitutional prohibition qualify as allowance, or is it necessary for the constitution to specifically prescribe a legislative role to the head of government and/or allow for dual officeholding?

My interpretation should be that it doesn't necessarily have to say that the head of government has a legislative role, but must at least state something like "The [head of government] may also serve simultaneously as a member of [the regional legislature]".

Maybe "explicitly permitted" would be better phrasing?

[Sestak]

What does "clearly allowed" mean? Does the mere absence of any constitutional prohibition qualify as allowance, or is it necessary for the constitution to specifically prescribe a legislative role to the head of government and/or allow for dual officeholding?

My interpretation should be that it doesn't necessarily have to say that the head of government has a legislative role, but must at least state something like "The [head of government] may also serve simultaneously as a member of [the regional legislature]".

Maybe "explicitly permitted" would be better phrasing?

What does that imply for Fremont's parliamentary system? The first minister is not "also" a member of the legislature, but rather is a legislator in his capacity as first minister. It would not make sense for the Fremontian constitution to state "the first minister may also serve simultaneously as a member of parliament," because being a member of parliament is inherent to the position of first minister.

Considering the apparent aim of this clause is to free the regions to allow dual officeholding within their governments if they so choose, why even include this prohibition in the amendment?

Setting the FM to be a member of the legislature must also by definition permit the FM to be a legislator.

I'd also agree that it's not necessary to include this prohibition here. Also, more controversially, I think the regions should be allowed to decide whether or not regional officeholders can serve as Senators; as they are chosen by the region.

[Sestak]

Maybe change it to "None who is a Representative shall also be a Senator, regional chief executive, or member of a regional legislator, nor shall a holder of any of the latter three offices hold either of the other two, unless explicit authorization is given by the constitution of the respective region." ?

[Sestak]

You need a second...

Personally, I oppose tabling this. Doof, not sure if you realized, but this only barely changes the actual rules, but gives Congress the power to suspend the rules that do exist; I'd argue that's actually a loosening of the rule.

[Sestak]

Abstain.

[Sestak]

Is it a 2/3 majority of the chamber to table or a 2/3 majority of those voting?

[Sestak]

I guess I Abstain as well.

[Sestak]

A two-thirds majority being required, enough negative votes have been cast for failure. Members have 24 hours to vote or change their votes.